I hate the breaks too but commercial radio is far far worse. I don’t think there is much choice. Maybe the MP3′s cut them out. Still it’s a break in thought. I do think that these are finessed rather respectfully and the point is picked up usually. I admit it is frustrating when it is not. Again I have not felt this as a problem.

I prefer not to think in terms of liberal or conservative but rather that this is a quest or a search and we are dependent on the host to lead and be informed in doing so. I think Chris is scrounging around for those magical moments for himself. Sometimes they happen, sometimes unexpectedly, sometimes not. The “open” part of open source is the relative openness of minds. The source can be anything, anyone that gives a spark. The game is to find meaning. When you divide us into liberals and conservatives or whatever- it destroys any magic you might be looking for.

Chris rates very high compared to any others that I have listened to. Tweek him to perfection if you will- I am sure he’s listening.

I agree about the sound problem with guests that are not in the studio or on bad phone connections. Callers are often on such bad phones. That is true of most of the shows I listen to though.

I did notice yesterday that Chris was hanging back a little and was a little less obtrusive. But the second problem with his interruptions, beyond just the rudeness, is the fact that there’s obviously some kind of engineering problem at the studio because Chris’s sound level is way up and his guests are way down. I kept fiddling back and forth with the volume all during my commute. It’s not just a one time thing either. Admittedly this may be due to the difference between FM and XM radio, namely that digital radio is more sensitive to differences in sound levels.

I agree with Allison that the role of host/journalist is to draw the best out of the guest, but you’re never going to get that through interruption. A lot of what passes for journalism nowadays consists of entertaining mindless mental whirlygigs like the Anderson 360 show which just a series of sound bytes. And they tend to ask questions that are designed to get those sound bytes, but in a public radio forum like Open Source, this medium is designed to explore the hard questions, the ones that take a while to answer.

With all good intention of offering something to people in crisis, this is exactly the kind of mishap that I was mentioning earlier. We have not had a response to our offer to house a family and as I read this, I know that it is imperative that we really create living quarters, like an apartment within the house, where we share the kitchen. The cost to do this might be about $15,000 – to make sure there is a private bathroom and bedrooms and living room and that we can still function as a household. Are others prepared for how long-term the need is? And how much people need the feeling of stability after being dislodged so abruptly.

Agreed with Evan that Chris should interrupt the guests who are starting to give speeches, but of course he should do it fairly.

Also to Allison’s comment, there’s indeed been a lot of talk in recent times, about who is a journalist, and how much journalists should make their own opinion known, and the blog boosters have burnished the myth that publishing a blog is needed to transform a staid reporter into a opinion-touting member of society. Chris has been following much of that conversation.

There are of course moments that a radio host has to choose between being the advocate for themselves and for the devil. For example, when Alan Wolfe chimed in that our current President is a dope, Chris saw no reason to object (neither would most people I know). But it’s also an opportunity for a radio host to say, “Now, Alan, is there something that the President could do, even now, to win your respect?” If the host is too knee-jerk liberal, he risks losing some people in the middle.

To be truly open source, somebody could take the trouble to audit all the guest interruptions, all the dropped points, the frustrated callers, etc., and submit it here, and it would be published. It’s esoterica, but if we as a community want to make this the best radio show there is, and we want to all be involved in making that so, by collating the solid evidence of just how well it’s run, we’d like to see that. That’s the IT person in me speaking. Most of what I want are the “driveway moments” that make public radio what it is.

I like having a program where the host has an opinion. Chris’ views are generally well-thought out and well-articulated. His willingness to debate with his guests and push up against them with his (or a devi’s advocate) perspective gives his interviews an energy that I appreciate. Its never dry. Its not as though he is an uneducated fanatic. He is intellectually stimulating, full of character and willing to speak out without being sensational or preying on base fears to drive audience reactions.

I am very excited to have his refreshing presence back on the Boston radio scene.

Also the question “What’s to be done now?” in regards to the verdict The Times arrived it in regard to the the Administration’s inactivity and ineffectiveness.

Also also: in regards to mfortner’s third footnote: Chris is not Charlie Rose, and there’s a need, in an interview, to keep the interviewee from giving a speech.

I posted most of my comments and suggestions on this subject in the “suggest a show” thread before this one was created so I won’t repeat myself.

I also said that I totally agree and am outraged by the stupidity of rescue crews refusing to take animals, forcing holdouts to choose between staying with their pets or being rescued. People would no more leave their beloved pets than leave a child. It’s been heartbreaking to watch. But hopefully the footage has broken enough hearts to cause a stir and things have changed for the better. I am afraid that many animals will still be abandoned or get sick or starve to death. It really hurts to see because they are helpless and dependent ( and innocent). Anyway I am glad I have so much company on this thread.

Today’s (Saturday Sept. 10) New York Times op-ed page had several essays on thoughts about what should happen next for New Orleans. I thought they were interesting.Today also the Washington Post posted an article ( for Sunday the 11th) that is quite good. “A Sad Truth:Cities Aren’t Forever” by Joel Garreau who makes some very good points. I link it here but I do not know how long the link will be good:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/09/AR2005090902448_pf.html